High court loosens reins on big campaign donors

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., right, accompanied by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., speak to reporters on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, April 2, 2014, about the Supreme Court decision in the McCutcheon vs. FEC case, in which the Court struck down limits in federal law on the aggregate campaign contributions individual donors may make to candidates, political parties, and political action committees.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I. left, accompanied by Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., speaks to reporters on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, April 2, 2014, about the Supreme Court decision in the McCutcheon vs. FEC case, in which the Court struck down limits in federal law on the aggregate campaign contributions individual donors may make to candidates, political parties, and political action committees.

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., speaks to reporters on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, April 2, 2014, about the Supreme Court decision in the McCutcheon vs. FEC case, in which the Court struck down limits in federal law on the aggregate campaign contributions individual donors may make to candidates, political parties, and political action committees.

FILE - This Oct. 8, 2013 file photo shows Cornell Woolridge of Windsor Mill, Md., takes part in a demonstration outside the Supreme Court in Washington as the court heard arguments on campaign finance. The Supreme Court struck down limits Wednesday in federal law on the overall campaign contributions the biggest individual donors may make to candidates, political parties and political action committees. The justices said in a 5-4 vote that Americans have a right to give the legal maximum to candidates for Congress and president, as well as to parties and PACs, without worrying that they will violate the law when they bump up against a limit on all contributions, set at $123,200 for 2013 and 2014. That includes a separate $48,600 cap on contributions to candidates.

Related Stories

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Wednesday further opened up the taps for political campaign contributions, with a bombshell ruling that removes long-standing limits on how much total money an individual can contribute to federal candidates.

In what amounted to a 5-4 decision, the court’s conservatives declared that the aggregate contribution limits imposed four decades ago violated the First Amendment’s free-speech protections. Though individual donations may still be limited, the ruling frees donors to spread their wealth across as many candidates as they can find.

That means a wealthy individual could start contributing more than $3.5 million to party committees and candidates over two years.

“They ... intrude without justification on a citizen’s ability to exercise the most fundamental First Amendment activities,” Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. wrote of the aggregate contribution limits.

The decision erases the aggregate limit of $123,200 for a two-year election cycle.

Roberts’ 40-page opinion, joined in full by three other conservative justices, continues the court’s dismantling of congressional efforts to overhaul campaign financing. Its constitutional reasoning may leave the remaining campaign-finance restrictions at risk, and it prompted demonstrations in cities from Tampa to Tacoma, Wash.

The court’s four Democratic appointees dissented from the conservative majority’s opinion.

“It understates the importance of protecting the political integrity of our governmental institutions,” Justice Stephen Breyer wrote. “It creates a loophole that will allow a single individual to contribute millions of dollars to a political party or to a candidate’s campaign.”

The ruling in the case, called McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, was not unexpected, given prior court decisions, but it had been highly anticipated ever since oral argument was heard last October. Advocates from all sides were primed to respond quickly, and for most part predictably.

Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus called the ruling an “important first step toward restoring the voice of candidates and party committees and a vindication for all those who support robust, transparent political discourse.” The RNC raised $409 million during the 2012 election cycle.

Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer of New York, though himself an aggressive fundraiser, denounced the ruling as “another step on the road to ruination.” Schumer has $11 million sitting in his campaign treasury.

Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy and Samuel Alito joined Roberts’ opinion. Justice Clarence Thomas concurred, making for an effective 5-4 majority, though he wrote a separate, more purist, concurring opinion calling for the strict end of other campaign limits as well.

“This case represents yet another missed opportunity to right the course of our campaign finance jurisprudence by restoring a standard that is faithful to the First Amendment,” Thomas wrote.

The decision Wednesday targets one part of a 1974 campaign finance law, enacted in the wake of the Watergate political scandal. Limits were placed on how much an individual or committee could give a particular candidate. Aggregate limits were also set, capping the total that a donor might contribute to all candidates and committees.

In a famously complex 1976 decision, called Buckley v. Valeo, the Supreme Court upheld much of the 1974 law and divined a difference between campaign donations and campaign spending. Spending by a candidate was deemed tantamount to political speech, and so received greater First Amendment protection. Campaign donations to the candidate were deemed potentially corrupting and hence subject to regulation.

The ruling Wednesday left intact the legal distinction between contributions and expenditures.

Of the $123,200 limit on individual donors in effect before Wednesday’s ruling, up to $48,600 could be given to federal candidates and their campaign committees and up to $74,600 could go to political parties and to political committees that aren’t connected to candidates. (State and local candidates are governed by local laws.)

Alabama businessman and Republican donor Shaun McCutcheon challenged the limits. During the 2011-12 election campaign, he donated a total of $33,088 to 16 federal candidates. He says he wanted to donate to an additional 12 candidates as well, but his intended donations would have exceeded the aggregate limit. He also says he wanted to boost his contributions to federal Republican committees, but again ran into the aggregate limit.

Federal candidates, parties and committees reported raising and spending more than $7 billion during 2011 and 2012, according to the Federal Election Commission. In the 2010 case known as Citizens United, the Roberts court expanded a limited case to rule broadly against limits on corporation and labor union spending.

“The government has a strong interest ... in combating corruption and its appearance,” Roberts wrote Monday. “We have, however, held that this interest must be limited to a specific kind of corruption _ quid pro quo corruption _ in order to ensure that the government’s efforts do not have the effect of restricting the First Amendment right of citizens to choose who shall govern them.”

“Where enough money calls the tune, the general public will not be heard,” Breyer wrote. “Insofar as corruption cuts the link between political thought and political action, a free marketplace of political ideas loses its point.”

Lawmakers including Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., have introduced extremely long-shot proposals to amend the Constitution in order to reverse the court’s campaign finance rulings.

ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for
following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and
comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are
automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some
comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules,
click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.

I do believe that it is from democraps who see the writing on the wall. They know that the end is near for their political careers because of this ruling by the supremes. Americans can now help their political candidates by opening their wallets and giving more. Not to worry, the liberals still have absentee ballots and cemetery voters with whom they can continue working. Although a long time coming, a wrong has been made right.

I do believe the Replicans finally see fruits of their labor and their donor's money. They know that the pinnacle is near for their political careers because of this ruling by their employees, oops I man conservative judges. Rejoice, rejoice,... let the auction begin!

Replicans can now buy unlimited political candidates by opening their wallets and purchasing, oops I mean giving more. No worries, the benevolent oligarchs will rule with compassion and integrity and offer great deals on swamp land.

Although a long time coming, a wrong has finally been made galatically more wrong!

Politicians already spend one third to one half their time fundraising, this misguided decision will only make it worse.

They need to get out to the bone orchards and get those spooks to register to vote via absentee ballots. For those dems who zoned out during general math class just remember that if you register one who died before 1900 then that voter would be over 114 years old and even a sleepy county registrar might catch that one. Also remember that if a stone has only a birth date and no date of death then that voter might still be walking on the top side of the grass and if he votes in person and you vote him by absentee ballot then there might be a problem. Don't worry, if you get arrested the charges will be quietly dropped by the Department of Justice after the elections are over courtesy of Eric Holder.